Support for this podcast comes from Is Business Broken, a podcast from the Mehrotra Institute at BU Questrom School of Business. A recent episode asks, are boardrooms ready for the new geopolitical reality? Stick around until the end of this podcast to preview the episode. WBUR Podcasts, Boston. WBUR producer Kalyani Saxena How you do? I do so good So good Alright I feel like this conversation Which is your sophomore appearance on Endless Thread Congrats This is right in your wheelhouse Because your first Endless Thread conversation About ten years ago now in like modern internet time was about Kamala Harris. Remember Kamala? I do. And Brad Culture. Yeah. I have heard of her. And you're right that this is in my little wheelhouse. I love when politics and internet culture have a small little love affair. So today we begin with Melania, another somewhat political topic, a person in politics, et cetera. So for whatever reason, the modern data brokered internet did not deliver me ads for the new documentary Melania, which covers the story of her private life leading up to President Donald Trump's inauguration in 2025. Okay, you didn't get the ads either. No, I actually heard about it from my dad. He's like, did you hear about the Melania movie? And I was like, Melania movie? There's a movie about Melania? And then, you know, we went from there. Fair. Okay, so I did not know this was a real movie also that was coming out in 2026. I did not find out from your dad. I found out when I saw the snark on Reddit. Okay, so this discussion of Melania on the internet kind of snowballs as these things are want to do. The Daily Beast says that this documentary, which cost $75 million to make, and apparently brought in 7 million in box office seats its opening weekend. Great ratio. Well, not a great ratio, but a pretty good opening weekend for a documentary, actually. And this $7 million number, amongst some other things, were very surprising to people on Reddit who maybe didn't know a single person who went to see the movie or saw reporting about mostly empty theaters and social media posts about empty theaters. There was a lot of skepticism that all of those ticket sales represented actual people going to see the movie. Like, were they part of some kind of push to make the movie seem more popular or successful than it was? There were a lot of rumors flying around about this, everything from the military being pressured into going to see the movie to block ticket sale buying. And now there's been some reporting on those rumors. Tom Bruggeman covers box office news. He wrote in his newsletter about industry sources who said there were signs of block ticket sales, like when a person or a group buys a whole bunch of tickets that were then given away for free. And then there's this guy, Matthew Bologna, at the puck, who then reported that AMC and Regal told him they did not see unusual ticket purchasing. And also that Amazon says it did not artificially boost ticket sales. So, you know, this is a little complicated, but I think a lot of the speculation around fake ticket sales has to do with just like how much money Amazon has been willing to spend on this movie in general. So the company paid, Amazon paid Melania Trump's production company $40 million for the rights to the movie. That is a lot of money to pay to a member of the president's family. It's also way more than anyone else wanted to pay for it. So that was kind of interesting. Then Amazon spent $35 million to market the movie. That is a lot of money to pay for a documentary. That's not your average documentary spending budget when it comes to marketing. And this is not a money-making venture for Jeff Bezos, right? And it's not a secret that Bezos is trying to get close to President Trump. So, there's arguably something flattering to the president about this movie being worth so much and about so many people wanting to see a documentary about the First Lady, which brings us to the thing that we're going to get into in this episode. It is something else that I've seen a bunch of people wondering about on Reddit. Are you ready? Do you know the phrase, Kalyani, astroturfed? Are you familiar? I am familiar with astroturf, even though I was not what you might call an athlete. But I imagine there's a different meaning. Yeah, yeah. Artificial, artificial turf. The idea here being that you can use the Internet to suggest or create interest in something, even though there's no interest in the thing or very little interest in the thing. So kind of like using the tools of the Internet to make something seem more popular than it is. Long story short. Like audience plant type. That's right. And, you know, in that discussion about astroturfing and this movie and reviews, specifically reviews, there was a lot of conversation about the website Rotten Tomatoes, which do you use Rotten Tomatoes? I don't actually. I mean, I use it in the sense that like when I Google a movie and then I see the like Rotten Tomatoes, it's on Google, it pops up as like a potential. 100% fresh. Yeah. But I can't say that I've gone and logged on to Rotten Tomatoes and looked. Okay. I don't. You're not checking the freshness of the tomatoes, is what you're telling me. No, I'm not. I'm not a big tomato fan in general, but that's either here nor there. Okay. All right. So the current rating of this movie is like 10% via critics, so 90% rotten. and the audience score is 99% fresh. So this is like a huge difference in scores. So, you know, I think it's time for me to sort of lean back in my movie chair. I'm going to take my popcorn out, or in this case, my Mike and Ikes, and I'm ready to learn. Because Kalyani you started looking into this and I think what we trying to answer right is these very specific questions People are wondering why there such a big difference between the critic score and the audience score Could this be the result of astroturfing? I've seen a lot of Reddit threads over the past couple of weeks sort of referencing this, making jokes about it, specifically using the word astroturfing. There's not like one big post, but there's a lot of people referencing astroturfing and fake reviewing in all of the different Reddit threads that are discussing this topic of the movie. And you've done some deep diving, Kalyani, into how Rotten Tomatoes works. I have questions. You have answers. We are going to get into all of it right when we come back. At Radiolab, we love nothing more than nerding out about science, neuroscience, chemistry. But we do also like to get into other kinds of stories. Stories about policing or politics, country music, hockey, sex of bugs. Regardless of whether we're looking at science or not science, we bring a rigorous curiosity to get you the answers. And hopefully make you see the world anew. Radiolab, adventures on the edge of what we think we know. Wherever you get your podcasts. Support for this podcast comes from Is Business Broken? A podcast from the Mehrotra Institute at BU Questrom School of Business. When a geopolitical crisis hits, how should a board respond? Perhaps by helping the company find its core values. Who are we? What is our vision? What is our strategy? As an organization, what is our ethos? What are our morals and values? Follow Is Business Broken wherever you get your podcasts. And stick around until the end of this podcast to preview a recent episode. Business leaders listen. Over half tune into podcasts daily. Reach them with City Space Productions, the creative studio from WBUR's business partnerships team. City Space Productions crafts custom podcasts for businesses that showcase expertise, deepen connections, and drive engagement. Turn your vision into a podcast. Visit wbur.org slash creative studio. We're back, Kalyani. We're back. And you're about to learn me some facts. And I have been doing some deep digging in the tomato garden, as they say. And I'm going to start with a little history lesson. Have you ever seen the small, the tiny indie film Rush Hour? Please tell me you speak English. Do you understand the words that are coming out of my mouth? Oh, my God. We were talking about this. And yes, I have seen I've seen both. I've seen one and two. I don't know if there were more. there was one more they probably should have stopped at one and the reason i know this is because i just re-watched both movies for the first time in 20 years i watched them as a child and i watched them both back to back on a plane which in my opinion is like i think that's the only format in which rush hour should ever be viewed is on a plane i think some movies are just built for the plane and and this one is but for people who have not seen the movie it's a buddy cop film that stars Chris Tucker and Jackie Chan. And they've sort of been thrown together to solve this is the first movie they've been thrown together to solve the kidnapping of a diplomat's daughter. And it's watching it back 20 years later. Like, I don't think you can argue with the fact that Rush Hour is funny, but it's also aged in a way that's like, not so hot. I don't know that you would see that movie made in the same way today. I have not watched it since I since like when did it come out? Do you know when it came out? 1998. And this is relevant. 1998 is relevant. OK. So in 1998, a guy named Sen Yong, he actually ends up creating Rotten Tomatoes. But at the time, he was just a really big fan of Jackie Chan movies. OK. And he was looking for information about this movie in particular, Rush Hour. And I admittedly was not super sentient in 1998. Like I was around, but I wasn't watching movies. So I'll have to ask you. I mean, do you remember how people used to find movie reviews? No idea. No idea. It was primarily looking at newspapers, magazines. Like you would have to go somewhere, look at a physical article and sort of there was no central place in which all those reviews were compiled. So that's a good that's a good point. It was like it was like a wire service. Either there was a local critic in the newspaper that you read. Right. Or it was like a wire service and the reviews would come out when the movies came out that week. And it was like, sometimes you didn't even know who the person writing the reviews was. It was just like the review that the wire service that ran in the newspaper. You're like, oh, I got three and a half stars. And here's like a paragraph or two on the movie. Interesting. Yeah, I didn't even think about that. Yeah. So he was looking at all these different sources of information about this Jackie Chan movie. And he was like, wait a minute. What if there was a site that put together reviews from all these different sources in one place? And here's how he described it on a podcast called So This Is My Why last year. Every weekend, I noticed there were all these asshole movies. And every movie, no matter how good or bad, will have critics saying how great it is. I've seen some pretty bad movies, and I'm just like, there's no way this movie is that good. So that gave me the idea, hey, I should just Create a website, pattern it after these movie ads, but not just the good ones, but also the bad ones. So he puts together the site that becomes Rotten Tomatoes in like a crazy short period of time. And so it would be ready in time for the release of Rush Hour in August of 1998. But then the movie gets pushed to September of 1998. So he ends up using it to compile reviews for other movies, too. Not just like as a site about Jackie Chan movies. That's super interesting to me. I mean it just reminds me of this like wisdom of the crowd idea of a certain time on the Internet when it was like you know what Like the information that we have that like highly moderated is not as good as the like total feedback of the audience that's like going to this thing. And that makes sense to me. From a 1998 perspective, that makes sense to me. Yes. Well, I mean, the site has really evolved over time. It sort of does both, right? It's got the opinions from the critics and it's got the audience opinions. And on Rotten Tomatoes, for people who don't know, there's two scores that you actually have to pay attention to. There's the tomato meter, which is the one that most people are familiar with. It's based on the reviews of critics. The staff of Rotten Tomatoes, they go through hundreds of opinions from film and TV critics. And then they mark them whether they're positive or negative. And then the score that you see, like 55%, represents the percentage of reviews that were positive. So 60% or more positive reviews, fresh. 60% or less, rotten. That's when you see the green splat. Got it. But there's another score that I think is really key to this discussion about Melania. It's the popcorn meter, which assigns a rating based on what fans think, not critics. Have you ever looked at that one? Yeah, I've seen the popcorn bucket. Yeah. And so here's how Rotten Tomatoes describes the popcorn meter working. If 60% or more of the reviews give a movie or show a star rating of 3.5 or higher, it's hot. If less than 60% of the reviews have a star rating of 3.5 or higher, it's stale. If a movie or show doesn't have enough reviews or hasn't been released yet, it will have a no popcorn meter score label. When we can verify users have bought a ticket to a film, the default score shown is composed of verified ratings and check marks appear next to their reviews. It's clearly one of those like, okay, the marketing team helps us explain this big change to the website to all the users, right? Right. And there's another little nitpicky thing that's really important to pay attention to here, which is that the default popcorn meter score that you see on the website is made of verified ratings, which means those are reviews from people that Rotten Tomatoes can verify bought a ticket to the movie. So that's specifically people who bought the ticket on Fandango. As far as I can tell, they're only able to verify reviews from ticket purchases off Fandango. Do you buy your movie tickets on Fandango? No, I buy my movie tickets. I don't know why I said that with so much disdain. I have no beef towards Fandango. I just buy them from my local indie theater on their website. And I don't think I've ever left a review on Fandango or Rotten Tomatoes. Well, that's an interesting thing too, right? As you're basically like, I get why they're doing it. They're trying to ensure that they don't get astroturfed, right? Like they're basically saying, no, you have to have actually purchased a ticket for this movie. Whether or not you went, I suppose you could purchase a ticket and not go, right? Which is also what we're kind of talking about here. But that is their effort to have some control over it. Of course, we should say, like, part of the complexity here is, like, again, this idea of, like, well, we know the review is legit because somebody bought a ticket. And we don't know a lot about how Fandango protects against block ticket buying or buying and not going and seeing the movie but leaving a review anyway. So our process of ensuring that the reviews are legit is still—it's not bulletproof, shall we say. But can you talk a little bit more, Kalyani, about how do you know how Rotten Tomatoes verifies its users? So the email address that you use when you log on to Fandango to buy your ticket, that should match the email address that you're using to leave your Rotten Tomatoes review. Okay. So if those two match, then your review is verified. Interesting. Okay. And this all comes back to Melania because Rotten Tomatoes' parent company says that there's been no bot manipulation when it comes to the audience reviews for the documentary. The reviews that are displayed on the popcorn meter are all verified reviews, which means that the people who reviewed Melania on Rotten Tomatoes bought a ticket for Melania. And we should note that these are just people who bought a ticket. Presumably they went to see the movie. There's no way to verify that they actually did. This is very interesting to me because, again, it sort of gets into this like weird zone of how like platforms on the Internet work. Right. And and they are, I would say, like in these weird ways, they are kind of like buggy. And like once you start to drill down, you start to see stuff where you're like, huh. Well, I've been thinking about this discrepancy between the critic score and the audience score on Rotten Tomatoes for Melania specifically. And I have one theory, which is that I think this movie, it's coming out obviously in a very specific political environment. And if you're going to see Melania, it's likely not a one to one, but it's likely that you have some positive feelings towards this presidential administration. You have positive feelings towards the first lady herself. And I feel like the folks who are going to see this movie are likely people who are going to enjoy the movie and maybe feel inclined to leave a review because they they want to counter any narratives about, oh, this this movie wasn't very good. meanwhile critics who are watching the movie they're watching it for work they have to watch it regardless of whether they feel strongly or not towards the first lady in the current administration so i think that there's sort of a feeling that like at least from my theorizing brain that you know so almost like a confirmation bias thing if if you're likely to see melania you're probably the kind of person who's going to enjoy it too all right okay but there's also another connection. I just want to bring it full circle back to Rush Hour. There's another really, really interesting connection here between Melania and Rotten Tomatoes and Rush Hour, which is that Brett Ratner, who directs Melania, also directed Rush Hour in 1998 and the whole Rush Hour franchise. And his last movie before Melania was in 2014. And that's likely because in 2017, he was accused of sexual misconduct by a number of women in Hollywood. He vehemently denied allegations of sexual harassment and assault. But this is sort of his first big thing in the wake of those allegations Wow And he also mentioned in the Epstein files He mentioned He is pictured He is pictured next to Jeffrey Epstein That is correct. Oh, man. Okay. So, it's so, we just, it's, we live in the weirdest timeline. And it is so strange to me, this like random synchronicity. And I don't know what to do with that, but I guess my takeaways are. All roads lead to rush hour. Sorry, I guess so. No, it's good to lighten it up. It's good to lighten it up, I guess. I mean, I guess what we're supposed to take away is that Rotten Tomatoes does have some way of verifying a thing that would normally mostly correlate with going to a movie, which is buying a ticket. I have a takeaway. Okay. Not to be profound, but I do. No, please. Please go on, my friend. Thank you, Kalyani. I think so often, like when we are talking about arts and culture, so much of the experience of like watching a movie is really intangible. It's about how it made you feel. And sometimes and what's great about sites like Rotten Tomato is it's sort of an ability to give data to like a general cultural feeling about something. Right. And I think it makes people uncomfortable or upset when you see something like you see a low percent from critics and then you see a 99 percent from the audience. You're like, what am I supposed to do with this data? How is it supposed to tell me to feel about this movie and the fact that it's coming out? I don't like that these things don't match. And I don't like that maybe they don't match how I personally feel. And I kind of have to be like, guys, let's put the numbers down. You know, let's put the numbers down. And I say this as someone who does not consult Rotten Tomatoes religiously. I really do think that when we're trying to quantify personal enjoyment and also a cultural vibe based on these numbers in a system, as we've already talked about, I think it's just a futile task. And I think when we're thinking about a film like Melania and the time at which it's coming out, I don't think we're going to find any clarity from Rotten Tomatoes numbers. So maybe my takeaway is put the numbers down and there's there's no real clarity we found there. I think that's that feels right. And I, you know, it also feels like relevant to a lot of the ways that I travel on the Internet now, which is like, I don't. I still believe in the wisdom of the crowd and also the madness of the crowd. And so, like, I think both things are true and can be true depending on the situation. And I also will admit that, like, I don't I don't pay attention to Yelp reviews anymore. I don't, it's been a long time since I've gone to Rotten Tomatoes to see anything as far as a rating. Like, you know what I do now to tell where to eat, which is a very, which is a thing that I care much about, is I look at the Google Photos. I go on to Google Maps, I find the place that I'm interested in, and I just do a deep dive on those photos. And that's how I tell whether the place is good to eat at. And I don't know what the movie version of that is, but it might just be like you watch the you watch a lot of trailers. And like if the trailer looks good, then if they did a good job on the trailer, then maybe they'll do a good job on the movie. I don't know. Is that is that where we're at? I just look at I just look at TikTok and see how many like lusty TikTok edits there are. And I'm like, if there's enough to grab me like it's same with books. If there's a line that I find interesting that someone posts about a book or like an edit, I'm like, you know what? That speaks to me. That speaks to me louder than any number can. I'm seated. That's a good takeaway, I think. Like culture is not culture is culture is not like about what it's like you were saying before. Culture is not really about like the numbers and the data. It's about at least as a consumer. It's about like how you feel. Right. So like I think that's a good place for us to land on. And if you feel like going to see Melania, you know, you don't have to respond to the Craigslist ad and get your $50. You can just go. And if you don't. You can just go. You could. And if you don't, don't. Don't go. Endless Threat is a production of WBUR in Boston. This episode was produced by Kalyani Saxena and Grace Tatter and hosted by me, Ben Brock Johnson. And me, Kalyani Saxena. It was edited by Meg Kramer, mix and sound design by Paul Vykus. The rest of our team is Amory Siebertson, Dean Russell, Chiosna Bernadeau, Emily Jankowski, and our managing producer, Samita Joshi. Endless Thread is a show about the blurred lines between online communities and your Fandango account. If you have an untold history, an unsolved mystery, or another story from the internet that you want us to tell, hit us up, endlessthread at WBUR.org. Thank you. tensions. Kurt, I think that your intuition about board dynamics being stressed is exactly the point. I think that in 2025, the biggest problem is board bandwidth, because we ask boards so much. We ask them to deal with those geopolitical tensions, and we ask them to deal with cybersecurity and the climate. And by the way, also the normal things of financial reporting and succession planning and hire the CEO and executive pay. And even if the directors are really, really great, and they're independent and they're expert and they have all the information. You need like the perfect dynamics, the perfect processes, the perfect pre-reading, pre-meeting materials. You need everything to be perfect just in order for you to fit all those huge issues into one agenda. Find the full episode by searching for Is Business Broken? wherever you get your podcasts and learn more about the Mehrotra Institute for Business, Markets and Society at ibms.bu.edu. Thank you.
